HEMANT vs STATE AND ANR

[2026:RJ-JD:51117]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 593/2018
CNR: RJHC010279052018 | URN: CRLR / 1454U / 2018
Hemant S/o Shri Goverdhan, By Caste Dadhich Resident Of
Village Kunwaria Police Station Kunwaria Tehsil And District
Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Smt. Sunder Kumari W/o Shri Prem Shanker, By Caste
Dadhich, Resident Of Nai Abadi, Asotiya Kankroli Tehsil
And District Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani
Mr. Manoj Chaudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Solanki
Mr. N.S. Chandawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reportable
08/10/2026
1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read
with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner
assailing the order dated 15.07.2018 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, in Criminal Appeal No.35/2017,
whereby the learned Appellate Court, while setting aside the order
dated 19.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Rajsamand, in Criminal Original Case No.130/2013,
held the petitioner guilty of the offences punishable under
Sections 341 and 323 IPC and remanded the matter to the
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:07:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:44:16 PM)

(2 of 5)
[2026:RJ-JD:51117] [CRLR-593/2018]
learned trial Court for passing an appropriate order on the
question of sentence.
2. The concise facts of the case are that on 13.11.2012, the
complainant lodged a report alleging that the petitioner and his
uncle, Jamna Lal, had assaulted her, outraged her modesty and
attempted to commit rape. Accordingly, FIR No.89/2012 was
registered for the offences under Sections 354, 367, 511 and
323/34 IPC. Upon investigation, the police submitted a negative
final report, whereafter the complainant filed a protest petition
and, upon recording her statements and those of witnesses, the
learned Trial Court took cognizance for the offences under
Sections 341 and 323 IPC. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted
vide order dated 19.01.2017 by extending the benefit of doubt.
However, in an appeal preferred by the complainant, the learned
Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, vide order dated 15.05.2018, set
aside the acquittal, held the petitioner guilty of the aforesaid
offences and remanded the matter to the learned Trial Court for
passing an appropriate order on sentence. Aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioner has preferred the instant criminal revision
petition, assailing, inter alia, the maintainability of the appeal and
the legality of the order passed by the learned Appellate Court.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
4. The principal controversy involved in the present matter is
whether the learned Appellate Court was justified in reversing the
order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and recording
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:07:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:44:16 PM)

(3 of 5)
[2026:RJ-JD:51117] [CRLR-593/2018]
a finding of guilt against the petitioner, followed by remanding the
matter to the learned trial Court for determination of the question
of sentence.
5. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an
appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, is
undoubtedly empowered to reappreciate the evidence on record.
However, where the view taken by the learned trial Court is a
reasonable and plausible view emerging from the evidence
available on record, the mere possibility of another view cannot,
by itself, furnish a sufficient ground for reversing the order of
acquittal. The appellate jurisdiction is not intended to substitute
one possible view for another merely because the appellate court
finds the latter more appealing. The presumption of innocence
stands reinforced by an order of acquittal, and the same cannot be
displaced without cogent and compelling reasons founded upon
the evidence on record.
6. In the present case, a perusal of the impugned judgment
reveals that the learned Appellate Court has proceeded to reverse
the acquittal substantially on the basis of the depositions of PW-2
Prem Shankar and PW-3 Anurag, who, as per the prosecution
case, reached the place of occurrence after the incident. The initial
version of the prosecution does not disclose the presence of any
eyewitness to the actual occurrence. Consequently, the testimony
of the aforesaid witnesses was required to be examined with due
circumspection, particularly with regard to the extent of their
personal knowledge and whether their depositions furnished
reliable and convincing evidence of the alleged assault.
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:07:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:44:16 PM)

(4 of 5)
[2026:RJ-JD:51117] [CRLR-593/2018]
7. Another significant aspect which appears to have escaped
the proper consideration of the learned Appellate Court is the
absence of medical corroboration. No injury report was tendered
in evidence to substantiate the allegation of physical assault. The
learned Appellate Court has sought to draw an adverse inference
from the alleged failure of the SHO to take the complainant to the
hospital for medical examination. Such an omission, even if
established, may reflect upon the manner in which the
investigation was conducted; however, a deficiency in investigation
cannot, by itself, be converted into substantive evidence of the
guilt of the accused. The omission of the investigating agency
cannot relieve the prosecution of its fundamental obligation to
establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot
be convicted merely because an investigating officer may have
failed to discharge a particular duty, nor can the existence of an
injury be presumed in the absence of reliable evidence
establishing the same.
8. This Court is conscious of the settled proposition that though
no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact and a
conviction can be based upon the testimony of a solitary witness,
yet, where such testimony does not inspire confidence and the
circumstances give rise to suspicion, corroboration from an
independent source becomes necessary as a rule of prudence. The
quality of evidence, rather than its numerical strength, is the
determining consideration. In the present case, the aforesaid
deficiencies, when considered cumulatively, assume significance in
assessing whether the reversal of acquittal was justified.
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:07:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:44:16 PM)

(5 of 5)
[2026:RJ-JD:51117] [CRLR-593/2018]
9. Upon an overall consideration of the evidence and the
reasons assigned by the learned Courts below, this Court finds
that the view adopted by the learned trial Court was a reasonably
possible view of the matter. The learned Appellate Court, instead
of demonstrating that the findings recorded by the learned trial
Court were perverse, manifestly unreasonable, or contrary to the
evidence on record, has proceeded to substitute its own
appreciation of the evidence without adequately dislodging the
reasons which had persuaded the learned trial Court to extend the
benefit of doubt to the petitioner. The impugned judgment dated
15.07.2018, therefore, does not withstand judicial scrutiny and
warrants interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
10. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision petition is allowed.
The impugned judgment and order dated 15.05.2018 passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, in Criminal Appeal
No.35/2017 is hereby set aside. The judgment and order dated
19.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Rajsamand, in Criminal Original Case No.130/2013,
acquitting the petitioner of the charges levelled against him, is
hereby affirmed.
11. The petitioner stands acquitted of the charges in question.
His bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged
12. Record be sent back.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Crt_20 (1763)
D/6
Mamta Tak
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:07:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 06:44:16 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)